Do You Agree That There Is a Moral Problem Associated with the Use of Cochlear Implant Technology to Treat Hearing Loss in Prelingually Deaf Patients?
Do You Agree That There Is a Moral Problem Associated with the Use of Cochlear Implant Technology to Treat Hearing Loss in Prelingually Deaf Patients?
Do you agree that there is a moral problem associated with the use of cochlear implant technology to treat hearing loss in prelingually deaf patients?
According to Crouch, there are major problems with the use of cochlear implants in prelingually deaf patients. He argues that these children are better off without cochlear implants because when given one, the efforts to learn oral language will hinder his or her contact to and commitment with the Deaf community. Without cochlear implants, deaf children would not be condemned to a life of meaningless silence, however, cochlear implants deprive deaf patients of a community of peers; a community with rich history, language, and values. My opinion is contrary to Crouch’s. I believe that the benefits associated with the use of cochlear implants overshadow the burdens of this medical advance. I favor any medical procedure with the most possibility of success (as long as there are no significant risks to the child’s health), to give hearing to prelingually deaf children, helping the child to learn an oral language that then makes it easier to assimilate into the mainstream hearing culture, because being hearing is better than being deaf.
Daniels argues that our society has a duty to maintain health so that the citizens can take advantage of every opportunity available. He agrees with any treatment that increases ranges of opportunity to restore equality of opportunity, and society should even provide it for the patient because it is medically necessary. Cochlear implants can presumably correct deafness, bringing a patient to normal function, a biological fact that grounds health care judgements. Not only the child and his or her family benefit from cochlear implants, but society also benefits from eliminating hearing loss because with hearing, these patients become more productive.
On the other hand, Crouch would argue that if you adopt the beliefs of Daniels, cochlear implants are unjustified because there is evidence showing that restoring hearing doesn’t contribute to equalizing opportunity in society, but rather, it alienates these patients from society. Crouch even says that restoring hearing makes these patients disabled. The prelingually deaf child using a choclear implant is forced to learn to reorganize and produce each vowel, consonant sound, and word from the bottom, and there isn’t even any guarantee that the child will learn the oral language. Attempting to overcome his or her disability with all of this work just reinforces this disability, keeping the child aware that he or she is an outsider trying to become an insider. Furthermore, it takes the child away from important aspects that the Deaf community can provide, like the alternate linguistic, educational, and social opportunities of the community. Crouch believes that a deaf child has all of the needed skills to achieve a different, but no less human, expressive potential, and identifying with the